Zoran Vraniskovski proposes Slav Macedonia

[Mikail]

Well said sestroThere are many of our people who need A shame they don't realise all they need to do is look in the mirror and utter "Jas Sum Makedonec / Jas Sum Makedonka

YES!, to put it blantly,
They fight to preserve the "inheritnce" tought them since
early school time. They do not understand the meaning of truth
of historical events, in the right format.
The same goest in todays lectures in ancient history of Macedonians
For example, after ocupation of Athens by Macedonians,
history does not state that Athens was ocupied by Macedonians.
It states that Alexandar of Macedon was Greek King, thus
in further reading one understands that Alexabdar is of Greek
descendant, and Greek. Historians totaly neglect to continue
that historic moment from Macedonian point of vew, but
continue to express the Greeknes of Macedonian history.
Omiting the point that Greece did not remotely exist as is today,
in ancient times. Elleni are not Greeks, per say.
That would be like, Macedonians deriving from Yugoslavs?
Elleni have forgoten who they are, because they have bin saturated
with Macedonian history and heritag to such extent that today
Greeks are like, blind falowers of an ocult.
and so on and so forth I hope I speak with clarity

With total clarity Babazuba! Total clarity!

[julie]

Orfej, what is your point?

[julie]

Cheers Mikail, now they are on about primordial approaches.
Bugger Me.
They can be whatever the hell they think they are, bunch of baboons.
I am a Macedonian princess , the daughter of Tsar Samuil, of Alexander the Great , KINGDOMS and STATES they ruled.
and no one can tell me otherwise , they can argue the dushmanite's bullshit all they like, I DONT GIVE A TOSS

JAS SUM MAKEDONKA

[Mastika]

i will be slightly off topic here mate and i apoligise, but have you ever been to Demirhisar? we can take it to pm if you like

Yes I have, I have no problem answering question on pm.

[Bratot]

Orfej Orfej... we agreed already that history is selective science right?

So why should someone support your selected truth and not mine?

Maybe you could point out where the provided translation was incorect, which part?

You blew it already with the "Empire" raping on this thread, it's clearly underlined it is about Republics and Federation, but if you really want to go head against the wall, I don't care.

On several point you are proven wrong but it's over too much for you to admit your lack of sufficiency in history knowledge and biased interpetation, isn't?

[Buktop]

Well mabe you should keep it to your self. Whats the point in you alone knowing the meaning that was intended.

Sorry, I assumed that people here would be able to understand English, or where I was coming from with that statement in the CONTEXT of my posts, which I can see neither you nor SoM have bothered to read.

"Greece only officially used the name Hellas in 1832 "

I am with SOM on this one. For something to become official, it would have to be unofficial previously.

Perhaps you should have used the words such as "For the first time" if thats truely what you meant.

Post the entire quote if you would be so kind and you will see the meaning. Officially as in an autonomous State, official in relation to the date of the founding of the state, not in reference or description of the name Hellas.

Maybe you and SoM should take your time and read more carefully rather than taking words out of context and drawing baseless conclusions.

Now will you allow me to continue my discussion with Vangelovski, the one before SoM derailed the thread...

[Buktop]

I think my head's bleeding...

I don't know whether you missed this or if you purposely ignored it, but here it is again

Buktop,

First you claimed that you've read these books, now you say you'll only read them if I tell you which parts!?!?

I said I had read some of the authors works, not that I had read all the references you posted. I asked you to point out the differences in my notions in comparison to those of the authors so I would have a better idea of what to identify when reading. If my notions and there's are the same then why should I waste what little free time I have confirming my own notions?

Its difficult to be specific about which part of your idea of states and nations are wrong as you change your understanding with every post. And although your understanding changes, it does not improve. This is because you refuse to do any research, rather, you're relying on your own preconcieved (uninformed and ill-reasoned) ideas and attempting to defend Meto at the same time. In a nutshell, your understanding of what a state IS and what a nation IS, is funamendally wrong.

My understanding of the words and concepts have not changed throughout my posts in this thread, I would ask you to please identify where they have. If my idea's are so ill-reasoned and uninformed, then it should not be difficult to state your opinion or view of how my notions differ from the authors.

As I suggested in my post with the references to those books, you should read that first one - its nicely set out, providing short (1-3 pages) discussions on each key concept. You should read the section titled "State", its only 3 pages long. You can find the page number in at the front in the "Table of Contents". For further, and more detailed information, you should read the following books on states. The second half of that list relates to nations.

Thanks, I will look into it when I get the time. But I still asked for your detailed opinion, and I don't think that is too much to ask, considering that you are qualified in the area of Nations and States.

The good thing about these particular books, and most academic works, is that they don't only put forward their theories (however well-reasoned they may be), but they actually test them against real case studies and then have them peer reviewed (by critics). In contrast, when relying on Google information, most of it is garbage someone wrote off the top of their heads, which neither makes any sense or has any basis in reality. I think that is the most important thing that you need to know. That's why if you want to be serious in your debate, you should refer to scholarly work - not to 'look' smart, but to actually make sense.

I said look to google books, which may have made your search for the scholarly works easier, like this book that you recommended. It offers a good general preview, although slightly limited, but allows access to key information contained in the works. I did not say to just google state and post me the first site that pops up. It took me all of 5 minutes to locate all the references you posted. It would be wise to utilize the wonders of modern technology, it might make your life easier.

Heywood, A., 2000, Key Concepts in Politics, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.

http://books.google.com/books?id=aiz8xT-imf8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Key+Concepts+in+Politics&ei=QpDCS6PfBqOKzASCqMjaCA&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false

In this particular Google Book, the chapter on State is provided, and the definition is as follows,

The state can most simply be defined as a political association that establishes sovereign jurisdiction within a defined territorial borders and exercises *authority through a set of permanent institutions. It is possible to identify five key features of the state. First, the state exercises *sovereignty - it exercises absolute and unrestricted *power in that it stands above all other associations and groups in society; Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), for this reason, portrayed the state as a 'leviathan', a gigantic monster. Second, state institutions are recognisably 'public', in contrast to the 'private' institutions of *civil society - state bodies are responsible for making and enforcing collective decisions in society and are funded at the public's expense. Third, the state is an exercise in legitimation - its decisions are usually (although not necessarily) accepted as binding on its citizens because, it is claimed, it reflects the permanent interests of society. Fourth, the state is an instrument in domination - it possesses the coercive power to ensure that its *laws are obeyed and that transgressors are punished; as Max Weber (1864-1920) put it, the state has a monopoly of the means of 'legitimate violence'. Fifth, the state is a territorial association - it exercises jurisdiction within a geographically defined borders and in international politics is treated (at least in theory) as an autonomous entity.

Now tell me how my notions differ from those of this scholarly work.

[Orfej]

Orfej Orfej... we agreed already that history is selective science right?

So why should someone support your selected truth and not mine?

I’m not forcing anyone to accept my views, it’s a matter of choice. But I think the choice should be based on rational thinking!! Sorry but I don’t see your selective approach as rational and logical. Your posts confirm that.

Maybe you could point out where the provided translation was incorect, which part??

You blew it already with the "Empire" raping on this thread, it's clearly underlined it is about Republics and Federation, but if you really want to go head against the wall, I don't care.

On several point you are proven wrong but it's over too much for you to admit your lack of sufficiency in history knowledge and biased interpetation, isn't?

Obviously there are 2 camps who present us different translations regarding the same text. On one side there is Paskal Kamburovski( I really never heard of the guy) and on the other there is Pasko Kuzman( a well known figure in Macedonian archeology) I never stated which side translates the text correctly. I simply don’t know!!
But you on the other hand had already chosen to believe in the translation of Paskal Kamburovski, not because of some objective observation, but because you believe that this translation suits your agenda- proving the disobedience and fight of the Macedonians against Rome to establish their own state!! But how much a marble inscription would help you in proving that? Not much now would it? Remember we are talking about a period of 11 centuries( between the two Macedonian empires-that of Perseus and of Samoil) Knowing that only in a period of one century there were 3 big uprisings and rebellions against the Ottomans( Razlovci, Kresna and Ilinden- all national uprisings) it would be un-rational to present marble inscriptions as proofs of the 11 century disobedience of the Macedonian people against Rome!!

To make things more ironical you developed another theory which contradicts your first, that Macedonia was a state (or a autonomous region) in the ``Roman Federation``. So on one hand the Macedonians had their own state in the ``Roman Federation``, but on the other they were disobedient and fought against it!! These are the kinds of contradiction that the continuation theories provide!! In your lack of explanation you even made the Roman Empire a Federation.
It’s not your fault, you are not even aware how ridiculous it sounds.

[Bratot]

Since you don't know you can't really comment.
And put aside what Kamburovski said, I'm talking about the translation and it's the same in both cases.

Their "camps" as you chosed to call them are arguing only about the correct date, not the text.

Btw Paskal is art historian, who after 20 of years reseaching have wroten a book about the grave of Alexander. But.. why would you care..



And I asked you to tell me what the text represents to you, I am not interested in other interpretations!?


I provided sources and after proving your mistake you still inforce some foolish believes.

Did you checked the "Roman Foederati"?

Roman treaties (in foedus (treaty))

treaty or compact contracted by ancient Rome with one or more allied states (foederati). The treaty contained various conditions establishing permanent friendly relations between the contracting parties. A foedus aequum was a bilateral agreement recognizing both parties as equals obliged to assist each other in defensive wars...

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/211879/foederati

And yes, of course there was constant struggle for gaining more power inside the parties and ruling, that's why since the 6th century we can say that Macedonians took over the rule in the Estern Empire.

Instead of bothering you.. you should be proud of it.

But you got so deeply involved in opposing me that there is no use in talking to you anymore, I'm not a psychiatrist to bring you on the "good" side, you are grown up person and it's a matter of your choice how you will interpret the history.

But you cannot change something because you like it more the otherway.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Sorry, I assumed that people here would be able to understand English

People can read, the problem is other people like yourself don't know what they're writing, and scramble for justification after their errors have been highlighted to them, rather than admitting that you simply worded your sentence wrong, which gave rise for an interpretation that differs from the one in your own head.

Officially as in an autonomous State, official in relation to the date of the founding of the state, not in reference or description of the name Hellas.

You're a liar, or you are not very good at putting your notions to print. If it wasn't in reference to the name Hellas, then you shouldn't have written the following:

Greece only officially used the name Hellas in 1832

That's always been your problem Buktop, you would rather dodge, lie and re-interpret like your friend Meto than admit to your own errors. It's a pathetic trait, if you have a shred of principle, take some accountability.

Are you going to answer my previous question, what happens after the "one more time", because it has now been two more times? Was that a threat? Or was that another one of your famous statements that only you can understand?

[Buktop]

People can read, the problem is other people like yourself don't know what they're writing, and scramble for justification after their errors have been highlighted to them, rather than admitting that you simply worded your sentence wrong, which gave rise for an interpretation that differs from the one in your own head.

My sentence was perfectly fine and no one had a problem with it until you came in and took it out of context. You are trying to find any reason you can to berate me or attack me, enough is enough. I had no need to scramble for justification, anyone with the ability to understand English would know to read in context, rather than manipulating the meaning of a single fragment of the paragraph. But hey, you aren't the first one to derive misconceived notions by reading out of context...

You're a liar, or you are not very good at putting your notions to print. If it wasn't in reference to the name Hellas, then you shouldn't have written the following:

You can keep quoting that same fragment all you want, manipulation of text seems to be a regular occurrence with you. So I must respectfully disagree with your insinuation that I have lied about anything in this thread.

That's always been your problem Buktop, you would rather dodge, lie and re-interpret like your friend Meto than admit to your own errors. It's a pathetic trait, if you have a shred of principle, take some accountability.

Be careful SoM, you are letting your distaste for UMD override your ability to reason...

Are you going to answer my previous question, what happens after the "one more time", because it has now been two more times? Was that a threat? Or was that another one of your famous statements that only you can understand?

Threat's? Now why would I bother threatening someone over the internet? What do you take me for? A greek?

It was a courteous gesture to give you fair notice that I may not be so generous with my patience in future responses to these little slur's.

[Soldier of Macedon]

My sentence was perfectly fine and no one had a problem with it until you came in and took it out of context. You are trying to find any reason you can to berate me or attack me.........

No, it wasn't fine, that is why it was highlighted - with a question initially, I might add. You are the one, who, in his paranoia of others looking to find any reason to "berate" or "attack" you, decided to react defensively, hence the current predicament.

manipulating the meaning of a single fragment of the paragraph

Oh please, what do you take the readers here for, morons without the ability to criticise? Is that what you're used to dealing with, Buktop? If so, you're at the wrong place. You're the only person I have come across who says things like Greece only officially used the name Hellas in 1832 and then follows it up by saying it was not in reference or description of the name Hellas. Get real. Here is your full paragraph:

Officially meaning that we attained an independent state, before then there was no state, just like Greece only officially used the name Hellas in 1832, just like Albania has only used that name since 1913, just like Israel has only existed since 1948, just like Italy has only existed since 1861, just like Germany has only existed since 1871 ect...

For Macedonia, Israel, Italy and Germany it can be argued that you referred to the actual states themselves. However, for Greece and Albania you clearly make reference to names, and for Greece in particular you went to the effort of writing "only officially used the name". You are the only person that sees it in your own way, everybody else reading sees it the way it was written.

That is for the benefit of all readers to see that the only manipulation that has taken place is in your confused head.

Be careful SoM, you are letting your distaste for UMD override your ability to reason

Haha, yeah ok, now getting back to reality, parallels between your behaviour on this thread and others related to the UMD can easily be drawned, and you have shown support for them through every act of stupidity, don't be upset that most people here look at you in a particular way, you made your bed, now lay in it and dream of a night dedicated to Macedonian patriotism with Meto Serb dancing in the spirit of 3-name formulas. You have already made it clear that those circumstances don't bother you, so why not bring it all together and make one circus of an episode.

It was a courteous gesture to give you fair notice that I may not be so generous with my patience in future responses to these little slur's.

Begging your pardon, but you may want to clarify exactly what I should be expecting when your patience is no longer so "generous", because I am now beginning to shiver in fright. Are you going to start using profanity towards me like you did in your first response to me here? You are going to be disrespectful in a manner non-factual? Give it a shot, Buktop.

[Soldier of Macedon]

By the way, visit Mikail's thread called Some Macedonian Truths http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum...7397#post47397 , you know, the one you have been avoiding. Go and see how popular your views are among Macedonians regarding that particular topic, and don't forget to bring your Maknews signature too.

[Babazuba]

somebody took Mr. Nimic shnook

On Al Sat Television, Zoran Vraniskovski says that we should rename ourselves to Slav Macedonian. I cant believe we still have people like this in our country, what a farce.

http://sitel.com.mk/video/makedonija...-i-identitetot

Did EU apoint Vranishkovski to be the mediator?
Thats Mr. Nimic's crupy job.
How come Vranishkovski can ceep Macedonian name, yet he works
for Greece, via Srbiya.??
Please explain
It is time for all Macedonians to chaing their Greek names back to
Macedonian. First step to freedom. In front of EU representatives.
Iron is forged while hot.

[Mikail]

Babazuba, where do you write from?